I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[jan.didden]

Well, it's been fun. Yawn. Tomorrow is another working day.
G'night, and don't forget to tuck in your cables 😀

jd

 

[Doomlord_uk]

BudP:

So, can we step beyond this argument about what can or cannot be heard. The paper JC pointed to provides clear evidence that the ear is quite the capable device. So, hearing the differences really cannot be damned by lack of scientific proof. The paper is pretty clear about this.

We can't step beyond the argument - it's the topic of teh thread and one I'm having real trouble getting people even to engage in. I and others don't doubt the remarkable, scientifically demonstrated, properties of the ear. "hearing the differences" is not damned by lack of scientific proof, it's damned by virtue of the failure to test properly, and further by the actual scientific proof that well-made audio cables do not have complex audible differences of teh kinds claimed by the subjectivists.

I apologise, too, but I missed the link to JC's paper? Anyone kind enough to repost?

So, the real problem is one of comprehension, assuming of course that you can use the ears attached at birth. Within this comprehension chimera Jakob pointed to, musicians as having a quite high level of comprehension. However, I have spoken to many musicians who could care less about audio quality, their interest is in other qualities and even a cheap table radio is considered a competent provider.

With all due respect I think the problem is simply the refusal of the subjectivists to re-examine their testing methodologies, agree that DBT is the essential testing paradigm or respond at all to known cable physics or facts about the psychology of perception. I, in contrast, have as an 'objectivist' responded with detailed comments and criticism to all the points etc of the 'subjectivist' camp. This is a very one-sided debate, unfortunately.... as Curly et al have feigned incomprehension persistently.

So, does this mean that only people who train themselves to listen for differences in audio devices are competent enough to be placed on a DBT panel? Are we then to believe that Michael Fremer and the rest of the audio gatekeepers are our only resource? Has anyone been to a commercial audio show lately? Were you pleased with what you comprehended about what you heard?

No, anyone concerned with audible differences can and should participate in a DBT. In the first instance, highly-trained self-styled audio luminaries like Michael Fremer might like to step up to the plate. The objectivistis have, in the best scientific fashion upon initial investigation of a phenomenon, sought to have only test subjects with the best hearing (young, healthy people, basically) participate. In the first instance, we'd be happy - delighted even - if ANYONE could prove they could reliably detect differences in cables just by listening in a DBT. It's been a while since I attended a hifi show 🙁 but by and large I did enjoy what I heard and was highly impressed. Not for a microsecond did I attribute anything to the cables used... And I might point out the cable companies themselves, whilst plying their wares, were not demonstrating them. You have to wonder why...

 

[Curly Woods]

I take it that you indeed don't have any logical arguments, or even none at all, depending as you do on flee-flowing word strings from another argument-free post. Figures.

jd

I have not the energy to type what Bud so eloquently already stated. Sorry if that offends you.🙂 Besides I would rather not waste my time on anyone that calls me a "liar", because I personally see little to be gained by DBT's.

I am able to distinguish everything I need to know by simply listening and determining what is good and what is not. This allows me to not be taken by charlatan manufacturers and their bogus claims, while anyone that must rely of DBT will never know what they are missing or if they have been taken by a product that offers little value in terms of its ability to play music in a musical and correct manner. I never one time ever had a customer ask for a DBT when purchasing audio equipment. They wanted to listen to each piece of gear to compare them to determine "it's" imprint on the system.
Is the reason that many people here want everything to sound the same so that what ever they build, they can tell themselves that it is the best available? I mean why waste all of your time and efforts to build something if it is not to try to make a "tour de force" sounding piece of audio equipment? But everything sounds the same so I guess it does not really matter anyway does it.

 

[Curly Woods]

Wrong wrong wrong.

It was Fremer from the very start. It was he who applied for the $1 million challenge, not Pear Audio, claiming he can hear differences in cables.

Pear Audio subsequently contacted Fremer and offered to supply some of their cables for the test. Pear never applied for the challenge and never had any contact with Randi.

While the details of the test were being worked out, there were THREE (count 'em!) THREE, different cables on the table for consideration. The Pears, a pair of Transparent's Opus cables, AND Fremer's own Tara Labs cables.

Randi expressed a preference for Fremer using his own Tara Labs cables, but said he would have to consult with his advisers first.

That's where things stood when Pear backed out.

And the moment Pear backed out, that !@#$% disingenuous weasel Randi yanked the rug out from under Fremer, declaring the challenge over, and effectively calling Fremer a coward.



It had nothing to do with either.

At the time the !@#$% weasel Randi pulled the rug out from under Fremer, Randi's preference was for Fremer to use his own Tara Labs cables, pending his consulting with his advisers.

Further, at the time the !@#$% weasel Randi pulled the rug out from under Fremer, he had NOT yet consulted with his advisers regarding Fremer using his own Tara Labs cables.

Still further, the Transparent cables had not been taken off the table either.

It was nothing more than a dishonest attempt on Randi's part to try and smear Fremer.

You can continue to try and defend Randi all you want. But I was there. I saw it all transpire, both what was said in public and in private EMail between Randi and Fremer.

The man's a !@#$% weasel.

se

Thank you for your object view of what actually happened. I posted a link about The Amazing Randi and his slimy tactics. Fremer played fair.

 

[Johnloudb]

To wrap up about 10,000 posts: It is well established, with countless supporting research, that the final perception of a 'sound' is caused by the actual sound, the expectations, the experience, the 'body state', peer opinion, DUT size, color, price and a host of other parameters.
Therefore, if you want to establish differences based ONLY on the sound you must try to eliminate all those other factors that are not the 'sound'. This leads to the requirement for some form of double blind testing. Anything else is anecdotal.

That OK with you?

Edit: You CANNOT prove that something is not audible! How would you do that?? If you don't get this basic point, what's there to discuss??

jd

People try to do it all the time, with short double blind testing methods. Lies! But, yeah I get your point. Any blind test has to take the brain into account and how we hear, this means extended listening blind test, that lets you learn the sound. Simple.

All these engineers on this board and all we do is argue about audibility of this and that. Someone needs to do some blind tests .... yes, extended listening blind tests.

Wasn't Jakob talking about doing some blind testing once. Is he still going to do that? I haven't followed this thread closely till the last few days.

 

[AJinFLA]

Sorry Sy, I like many more than those that say that we can not, hear differences other than frequency related issues with all types of components. I have heard your stance previously that homopathics, mediums, ghost hunters, etc. I will not play this game. Either you can hear these differences, or you choose not to, your call. No one can make anyone do what they feel that they are not capable of doing 😎

Umm, Im not SY (you quoted me above your response). It's no game. You refer to greater numbers of people believing something as significant. There are a heck of a lot more people (now and throughout history) who hear apparitions, vs the number of audiophiles in history. The empirical data is overwhelming. They trust their ears as much as you do. (Physical) Science and textbooks have no (current) explanation, etc.
Do you dismiss the belief that a great many people can hear apparitions, despite their numbers and supporting anecdotal empirical data? Dare you tell them that they cannot be hearing what they hear?

See Floyd Toole's lasts works for further insight. You might at least have second thoughts about your stance.

I've noticed you and other believers referencing Toole and his book which you have read. Do you have any idea what type of listening tests he is carrying out?

 

[Key]

All these engineers on this board and all we do is argue about audibility of this and that. Someone needs to do some blind tests .... yes, extended listening blind tests.

Right on.

 

[AJinFLA]

the !@#$% weasel Randi

Steve, are you sure you're not slightly jaded by your friend/customer Wellfed's debacle with Randi, prior to the Fremer/Randi thing?
Wasn't that also supposed to be some sort of wire/cable shenanigans, that you were to be involved with?

 

[AJinFLA]

Someone needs to do some blind tests .... yes, extended listening blind tests.

That's the dilemma. The folks with the resolving enough systems, who can hear cables (etc.), refuse to do any controlled tests whatsoever.
Catch 22.

 

[BudP]

The name of the paper.

'Modeling the Active Process of the Cochlea: Phase Relations, Amplification, and Spontaneous Oscillation' by V.S. Markin and A.J. Hudspeth


Google and you can download individual pages in gif format and if I had cared to look at all of the other listings, probably other formats as well.

Bud

 

[aardvarkash10]

But, yeah I get your point. Any blind test has to take the brain into account and how we hear, this means extended listening blind test, that lets you learn the sound. Simple.

It kinda depends on what you are looking for surely? "learning the sound" as you put it implies a change in perception - the exact opposite of what you are trying to do with a DBT to assess if cables have different sonic signatures.

If cables do have such a signature (regardless of how that arises), that should be observable immediately and repeatably and commonly if you know what you are listening for. For this, a commonality of understanding of the phenomenon is needed and that requires training before the test so subjects commonly understand what is meant by separation, sound stage, air and the various other bits of verbage used to describe the aural properties.

All that leads to my earlier point about our lack of a common language to make these assessments and to communicate them.

In short, they don't need to learn the sound of a cable they need to learn how to identify the different components of what they are hearing, learn how to separate them, and then learn to quantify them. This ability needs to be shown to be relaible and repeatable before the test.

Then the test can identify if the subjects are able perceive differences between cables. It may also (but not necessarily) be able to quantify the differences.

THe first part does not require the subject to learn the cable - the only thing they have to do is correctly identify that the cable has changed by hearing a change in signature. This type of test (comparative) is most reliably done in the shortest timeframe possible, since it relies on a clear and precise memory of the preceeding sample.

The second part might well require more familiarity and therefore a period of scrutiny. I would prefer not to call it learning as that implies, as I said, a change in perception that would necessarily invalidate the test.

 

[Curly Woods]

The name of the paper.

'Modeling the Active Process of the Cochlea: Phase Relations, Amplification, and Spontaneous Oscillation' by V.S. Markin and A.J. Hudspeth


Google and you can download individual pages in gif format and if I had cared to look at all of the other listings, probably other formats as well.

Bud

Thank you Bud.

 

[BudP]

Thank you Bud. We would hate to slap the face of all of these highly educated brethern that firmly believe that nothing is audible and they will kindly let us know it too

I don't think that is what they are saying Curly. They are saying everything is audible and so cable differences should also be audible and that they will accept this possibility when it has been proven to be so with a verifiability neutral test. A test that could be duplicated anywhere in the world with a reasonable expectation of very similar results.

I do find that some folks get to boiling temp and do not pay attention to what is being said, on both sides of the issue. It is a shame that the statement to you, that while your results were perfectly comprehensible to you in your known environment, they would not necessarily be transferable to any other environment hasn't been left as the final word, on your admittedly anecdotal offerings. It is the repeatability that is being looked for and for that reason only a DBT, set up along the lines just provided by aardvarkash10 can be acceptable. Nothing else can be allowed if the accuracy of cable differences is to be made a part of scientific knowledge. That is the point of the scientific method, repeatability.

It kinda depends on what you are looking for surely? "learning the sound" as you put it implies a change in perception - the exact opposite of what you are trying to do with a DBT to assess if cables have different sonic signatures.

If cables do have such a signature (regardless of how that arises), that should be observable immediately and repeatably and commonly if you know what you are listening for. For this, a commonality of understanding of the phenomenon is needed and that requires training before the test so subjects commonly understand what is meant by separation, sound stage, air and the various other bits of verbage used to describe the aural properties.

All that leads to my earlier point about our lack of a common language to make these assessments and to communicate them.

In short, they don't need to learn the sound of a cable they need to learn how to identify the different components of what they are hearing, learn how to separate them, and then learn to quantify them. This ability needs to be shown to be relaible and repeatable before the test.

Then the test can identify if the subjects are able perceive differences between cables. It may also (but not necessarily) be able to quantify the differences.

THe first part does not require the subject to learn the cable - the only thing they have to do is correctly identify that the cable has changed by hearing a change in signature. This type of test (comparative) is most reliably done in the shortest timeframe possible, since it relies on a clear and precise memory of the preceding sample.

The second part might well require more familiarity and therefore a period of scrutiny. I would prefer not to call it learning as that implies, as I said, a change in perception that would necessarily invalidate the test.

I have sympathy for your position. I can provide cables that sound different, using all of the same materials, but they are an anomaly and the differences are only those provided by the amount of dielectric material vs the surface area of the wire used. In my own private activities I can claim that the "improvements" you note can be obtained by a particular amount of material and that too much material provides an unsatisfactory result, just as too little does. They are not the same result. But I cannot claim that other people using these same materials and methods would hear similar results in some other location. So, I have no admissible evidence.


This is why we have a modern society and all of the saber tooth tigers don't.

bud

 

[Key]

There was a little bit of talk about phase audibility today. Anyone want to put it to the test?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/156434-can-you-hear-phase-distortions-your-system.html

No time limit. Take a month I don't care. I promise no placebo in this test. Really it should be like shooting fish in a barrel I mean who
in their right mind would use a 24th order LR right in the middle of the most sensitive part of your hearing.

 

[aardvarkash10]

nicely put Bud, and good to hear from a kindred spirit in this...

 

[rdf]

It's possible BudP but I don't think true that I imagined every assertion that it's been scientifically proven, settled and done beyond argument that cables aren't audible. The justifications range from first principle simplified examination of the physics to field data from BAS cable ABX trials. Would the discussion be so danged lively and fun without such absolute certainties? No cable Unitarians here. 😀

 

[terry j]

You are welcome, especially as i can´t remember to have directed anything of the quoted to you. 🙂

I did not take it as directed to me personally, I was just pointing out that we had in fact TRIED to get curly to allow people and he do a test. That would definitely have qualified as 'go around to curlys and see' would it not?

(curly flatly refused)

Again, i can´t remember having talked about "traffic lights" .

Nope, and right now I cannot recall your EXACT words, sorry, but in your defense of curly you mentioned something along these lines (not traffic lights, but the concept of 'not being able to trust your senses..was that it??)

Curly tried to make the damning point that if you need to do a dbt, then you cannot trust your senses.

If you cannot trust your senses then how do you REALLY know if the traffic light is red or green

if you do not know what colour the traffic light is, how do you manage to get to work.

That is illustrative of the level of ALL curlys contributions here.

What can we conclude from that? Yes, humans are prone to sensory errors.
More interesting is what the recording engineers conclude from that story; it is (surprisingly) not that they further should rely only on dbts, but instead to be more cautious than before.

Let me address THIS little canard too. Simply because we say that to truly determine sonic differences only, you need t be rigorous does NOT mean that we rely only on dbt's to assemble our system.

If you COULD, then maybe you would, who knows. For some things it is extremely impractical...just how would you go about doing a dbt to select your speakers for example??

Are we still influenced by looks etc etc etc with speakers>? yes we are. Curly should read some of the findings from Floyd Toole. He may find that he and sean olive DO use blinded tests as that is the only way to determine the truth.

Of course, he selects only what HE thinks might back up his case. Again typical of the level of integrity he brings to the discussion.

In any case, I am satisfied both from experience and 'science' that cables, for example, are simply not worth worrying about. Leaving me with the only items that 'need' dbts being speakers, back to square one above!

And, speaking of JNDs, is it a hard threshold and if it is so, is it the same for every person on the world? Or is it more a bell shaped curve and if so what is the spread of the curve?

And if you´re sure that we were testing along the JNDs, could you cite some tests in which it was shown that the participants were able to reach that level of sensitivity?

If you couldn´t, and given the examples of _big_ differences not detected in perception tests (for example from the links i´ve posted before) what do you think can be concluded from those test results?

Wishes

Ok on the JNDs. I only brought it up to show how idiotic curlys 'how do you get to work' rubbish was. I presume then it was you that linked to the video clips??

Had a look at a few of them, quite revealing really!! Sadly, I accept their statistics...have a look at the comprehension level of society around us, not very high.

Those videos and their results (and I have not yet noticed this point being made in relation to them) show us, basically, what poor observers we can be. At least with video, we can freeze the frame and PROVE by pointing etc what object has moved, appeared and so on.

I can show YOU by pointing what I observe (note, I cannot show you what I don't observe)...and this was essentially the point I was trying to make to andre..which is why it is no use for ME to do a test for HIM (I did read your answer andre, hope my point made more sense to you now?)

BUT, again it comes back to one of the more common objections to the findings of dbt.s.....'how trained were the testees?'. Why do we need trained testees for a dbt to be valid, when the plethora of anecdotal 'I hear it I hear it I hear it'...ring any bells?..... always come from untrained (and as we can see from the videos) unreliable observers??

Good point about the bell curve..that is often forgotten.

So for the persecuted experts on board here, have you performed even the most cursory tests of those beliefs? For examples:

- Calibrated your tests with stimuli scientifically proven audible? Or is your certainty about its implementation based on faith? Are test protocols equivalent to your buddy swapping cables behind a screen of sufficient resolution to catch differences proven in the lab to be audible? Or for those fast switching speaker cables via relays, even tried pink/white noise?
- Measured? Simple enough question, has anyone here gone to the simplest first step and measured the frequency response differences between amplifier and speaker terminals, then compared to magnitudes scientifically proven audible?

I saw it was my comment to curly that prompted your response. Do you NOT agree that if curly were being honest about the issue of cable audibility he should add that 'there is a bit of 'controversy' about the issue'? Which was basically the point I was making about integrity.

To NOT at least make that point is as intellectually dishonest as saying 'regarding evolution, there is a bit of controversy over it's reality' !!!!!

Good questions. BTW, are any of those steps taken by the people here proclaiming 'I hear it I hear it I hear it'??

Again, why do these tests have to be of a far more rigorous/higher standard than the anecdotal sighted ones?? Why is not simply blinded (and level matched depending on component) good enough to guage broad trends.

If these tests were 'more relaxed' , would that not -in fact- be more likely to have positive findings of cable audibility???

What I mean is, I am certain that curly would fail a test with even the most cursory safeguards, why would he have a better chance of passing with stricter ones???

We are not doing scientifically controlled tests to determine limits of hearing etc etc, we are doing very simple basic tests to find out of these reported cable differences exist. So far they do not.

Why do we need to go to the effort to strengthen them?, esp if that is even LESS likely to find the 'results' we are trying to find.

How do you choose and set up a test system if you don't even believe in stage focus, which just happen to be one of the important aspects where cables can make a difference?

I don't get it andre. Whether or not I believe in stage focus, or whatever, if YOU did the test then you can listen for whatever your heart desires.

Choose and set up? It has already been done has it not? *your* system (ie anyones),,,did we not agree that it is best to do it on your own system?

So in culrys case, or andy g's, we do it on their system. And they can listen for stage focus to their hearts content.

Who are the WE, how many cable tests have YOU done? 🙂

WE..I did mention that...the non believers if you will. It was not used in an 'us vs them' sense, simply to say if you are the one who hears it, you should be the one to do the test. I tried to illustrate that better above, hope you caught it.

Besides, really, there is not much point in me or brett or doomlord doing a cable test and coming back here and saying 'we did not hear any difference between cables' is there.

Again, more reason why *WE* not only are not obliged to do the testing, no point in us doing the testing.

I wish this type of %&*# will get to an end, why must there always be we and you and morons and stupids?

Hope I cleared up what I meant at least.

I'm here because I would like to learn why there are differences between cables while measurements may suggest there aren't any.

Sorry andre. that is the trouble. each time a test has been done that takes into account the known confounders, each time it comes back that there IS no difference. THAT is the sticking point. Because it will simply get argued and ignored.

See how you changed it in your statement? The fact is, to date there have been no successful tests. You say 'why there ARE' (nope, not proven) and from there anything you say is based on a false premise. Curly cannot grasp it either.

Ok then. As long as you accept that for that test there was no difference, and you STILL feel we need to dig further, at least suggest an improvement to the test...AND DO IT.

Don't keep saying 'nah nah nah, I hear it I hear it I hear it nah nah nah' and then claiming differences that are NOT found.

Maybe your new test will involve LONG periods of listening rather than short snippets (just continuing curlys education)...your neighbour comes over and swaps the cable (or not) every second day. Whatever, work it out and try it.

that way you will at least be contributing to the knowledge base.

Oh, I answered about the blind testing I did earlier to panikos. I will add that I was the one who organised it.I will add that doing it as well as you can is quite a bit of work.

It's easy to prove you can't hear anything! What's your argument Jan? What kind of test do you think would show what's audible or not?

I cannot believe this was written!!!

You have been around the thread for at least the last few pages, how can you make comment like this?

Please, can we get a little bit of basic understanding??? Curly you too.

Cmon, if you are going to argue about an issue, at least have a little inkling about the issue. I cannot believe I needed to say that!!

Please.

 

[planet10]

Pray tell how one proves a negative?

Exactly. Mr Doom claim's that it has been done with cables.

dave

 

[Johnloudb]

It kinda depends on what you are looking for surely? "learning the sound" as you put it implies a change in perception - the exact opposite of what you are trying to do with a DBT to assess if cables have different sonic signatures.

If cables do have such a signature (regardless of how that arises), that should be observable immediately and repeatably and commonly if you know what you are listening for. For this, a commonality of understanding of the phenomenon is needed and that requires training before the test so subjects commonly understand what is meant by separation, sound stage, air and the various other bits of verbage used to describe the aural properties.

All that leads to my earlier point about our lack of a common language to make these assessments and to communicate them.

In short, they don't need to learn the sound of a cable they need to learn how to identify the different components of what they are hearing, learn how to separate them, and then learn to quantify them. This ability needs to be shown to be relaible and repeatable before the test.

Then the test can identify if the subjects are able perceive differences between cables. It may also (but not necessarily) be able to quantify the differences.

The first part does not require the subject to learn the cable - the only thing they have to do is correctly identify that the cable has changed by hearing a change in signature. This type of test (comparative) is most reliably done in the shortest timeframe possible, since it relies on a clear and precise memory of the preceeding sample.

The second part might well require more familiarity and therefore a period of scrutiny. I would prefer not to call it learning as that implies, as I said, a change in perception that would necessarily invalidate the test.

We respond differently to sounds we're familiar with than sound we aren't. My dad played the french horn in an orchestra and when listening to certain classical music he occasionally says, "That player messed up his tonguing" or something to that effect. I'd never notice that if someone asked me to tell the difference between two pieces - one with that error, and one without. Maybe after listening to those for some time I may pick it up, don't know. But it is clearly audible.

The brain turns up the gain (electrical pontential) for sounds of importance. And it filters out familiar sounds of no importance. It's called habituation.

A blind testing method should allow a person to learn the differences blind. Have sounds identified as A,B,C, ... Then test you on identifying those differences in an blind test. If you can't hear the difference after learning the sound, there is likely no difference to your ears.

 

[aardvarkash10]

We respond differently to sounds we're familiar with than sound we aren't.

Yes, and? As I said, we teach people to listen first. They are therefore familiar with the phenomena that are posited to exist and to have been heard by others.

The brain turns up the gain (electrical pontential) for sounds of importance. And it filters out familiar sounds of no importance. It's called habituation.

Absolutely true. It also "turns up the gain" for what it EXPECTS to hear.

A blind testing method should allow a person to learn the differences blind. Have sounds identified as A,B,C, ... Then test you on identifying those differences in an blind test. If you can't hear the difference after learning the sound, there is likely no difference to your ears.

No, a blind test should allow a person to identify the differences, if any. The test itself is not a place to learn the differences.

Completely concur with the second part of your statement which in fact is the nub of the argument. I'd go further and state that, if a proportionally large number of subjects can hear the difference, then it exists. By the same token, if a proportionally large number of subjects cannot hear a difference...